gj|\UGl81989

WORKING PAPER
ALFRED P. SLOAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY:

THE CASE OF NEURAL NETWORKS

by

Michael A. Rappa and Koenraad Debackere

June 1989 WP# 3031-89-BPS

MASSACHUSETTS
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
50 MEMORIAL DRIVE
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS 02139
 THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY:
THE CASE OF NEURAL NETWORKS

by

Michael A. Rappa and Koenraad Debackere

June 1989 WP# 3031-89-BPS

Michael Rappa is assistant professor of management, in the Management of Technology Group at the MIT
Sloan School of Management. Koenraad Debackere is a visiting fellow at Sloan and a doctoral candidate in

management at Ghent University in Belgium. The authors are particularly grateful to Susan Bj0mer of the MIT
Library for her expert assistance in electronic database searching, and to Professor Thomas Allen for his advice
and encouragement This research was sponsored, in part, by the Swedish Board of Technical Development
Mf T . (00«OICC I
 THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW TECHNOLOGY:
THE CASE OF NEURAL NETWORKS
by

Michael A. Rappa and Koenraad Debackere

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

June 1989

Abstract

This paper examines the dynamic characteristics of R&D communities

and their role in the emergence of new technologies. Using the case of
neural networks as an example, it empirically investigates the growth
and diffusion of the community using the literature published by neural
network researchers as a source of information. The data indicate that
the neural network community emerged with great speed, indicative of a
bandwagon-effect, but only after experiencing many years of wavering
enthusiasm and despair. The community survived intense controversy
and lack of financial support, to persevere on the dedication of a small
number of researchers who eventually succeeded in advancing their
ideas to a state whereby they began to attract the commitment of others.
As it grew rapidly, the community also became widely dispersed across
hundreds of organizations in the public and private sector, and was held
together by an elaborate grapevine that preserved the flow of
information between laboratories.
 1

Introduction

This paper explores the dynamic characteristics of R&D communities. The notion "R&D
community" is used to signify a group of individuals, composed of scientists or engineers,

who are committed to solving a set of interrelated scientific and technological problems, who

may be organizationally and geographically dispersed, and who communicate in some way

with each other, i The ultimate goal for some members of the community may be to create new

knowledge, while for others it may be to apply existing knowledge in the creation of new

products or processes. Furthermore, the community can include individuals employed in any

type of organization, such as universities, private firms, new ventures, quasi-public

corporations, and government research institutes wherever they may be located throughout the

worid.

This concept of an R&D community extends beyond traditional disciplinary and industry
boundaries. Although it is common to speak of entities such as the "physics community," this

is not what is intended by the term R&D community; nor is it meant to be a finer grain subset

of researchers within a discipline, such as those involved in solid state physics. Rather, the

community is normally interdisciplinary in nature and can include researchers from a wide

variety of academic specialties. Moreover, within the private sector, it includes firms

irrespective of their standard industrial classification. The only requirement is their focus on

some part of the relevant set of problems. Thus, the community is defined here by the nature

of the problem set and not necessarily by the end product, as is normally the case with an

industry definition.

'The notion of a research community has been developed extensively by scholars who have focused strictly on

academic scientists and the so-called "invisible colleges" which arise in various problem areas (ZLman, 1984). The
R&D community proposed in this paper seeks to extend the concept of an invisible college, to offer a more
encompassing view, and in doing so, explore its relevance to technological development.
 The dynamics underlying R&D communities are explored by studying the example of the
neural networks community. This paper seeks to broaden the scope of current thinking on

technological development which tends to emphasize the instrumental role of the firm in

bringing new technology to the marketplace. Much academic research on the subject of

technological development has been directed at understanding the functioning of firms (and

industrial research laboratories, in particular), attempting to unravel the relationships between

numerous organizational variables and success in developing new technologies. There is no

doubt that previous work along this line of inquiry has yielded important insights about the

management of technology development, but in focusing on the firm in isolation of the broader

environment in which technological development occurs, it may have lost sight of some other

critical dynamics in the emergence of new technologies.

In particular, it is proposed that technological development is not the exclusive domain of

firms—or for that matter, a collection of firms in a given industry— but rather an activity which

cuts across many types of public and private organizations. Furthermore, it is proposed that a

new technological development may come about through the concerted efforts of a community

of researchers which forms over time and that spans these diverse organizations. If this is

indeed the case, then the progress of such communities may be better understood through a

careful examination of how they function. This functioning is now further illustrated in the

case of the neural networks community.2

Neural Networks: An Overview

A neural network is a type of information processing system modelled after biological

processes, which has certain features that set it apart from the traditional and most widely used

^This study of neural networks is part of a larger study of the role of R&D conununities in the emergence of new
technologies.
type of information processing system, the digital computer based on the von Neumann

architecture. 3 The first distinctive characteristic of a neural network is that it is not

programmed in the usual sense, but rather it is trained with data. This is an attractive feature

because some information processing tasks are cumbersome from a programmer's perspective,

and indeed devising the proper algorithm to perform a particularly complex task may be

virtually impossible. It also implies that a neural network benefits from experience: as it

processes more and more information while performing a task, it becomes increasingly more

accurate in its response.

The second notable feature of a neural network is its degree of parallelism in processing a

task. Unlike a traditional computer, with a single or small number of sophisticated central

processing units, a neural network has a very large number of simple processing elements that

operate simultaneously on a computational problem. The advantage of such massive

parallelism is in its processing speed and fault tolerance (i.e., its ability to perform a task even

though some processing elements fail.). In sum, although they may vary in form and

function, neural networks, in essence, "...are massively parallel interconnected networks of

simple (usually adaptive) elements and their hierarchical organizations which are intended to

interact with the objects of the real world in the same way as biological nervous systems do"

(Kohonen, 1988).

A clear distinction exists between neural computing and digital computing. Training a

computer with data, or having it learn, are concepts quite foreign to the normal operation of the

modem digital computer. The basic computer consists of a storage unit into which data are fed

and a central processing unit with circuitry that can perform certain logic functions. It operates

^The neural network field is also referred to as "connectionism," "adaptive systems," or "neurocomputing." For a
comprehensive overvievk- of neural network technology, see the DARPA Neural Network Study (1988), or for a brief
review see Hecht-Nielsen (1988).
in accordance with a stored program (or set of algorithms) that retrieves, manipulates, and

stores bits of data (in binary form) in the course of its computational tasks. As Kohonen

(1988) points out, biological neural systems do not apply principles of digital or logic circuits

and therefore, the collective processes which are important in neural computing simply cannot

be implemented by logic circuits. Therefore, unlike programmable digital computers, no

machine instructions or control codes occur in neural computing. The circuits in neural

networks do not implement recursive computation and are thus not algorithmic. Nor is the

neural system's memory storage localized in a particular unit; instead, the memory function is

distributed among the numerous processing elements. For this reason, Hecht-Nielsen (1988)

claims that "neurocomputing is a fundamentally new and different information-processing

paradigm--the first alternative to algorithmic programming."

The unique characteristics of neural networks may make them well-suited for certain

classes of processing tasks that are otherwise difficult to perform using traditional

computational techniques, and vice versa. For example, much like the human brain, neural

networks are expected to perform best in applications requiring the processing of sensory

information and controlling interactions with the environment, such as speech recognition,

machine vision, robotic control, signal processing, and pattern recognition. But conversely,

neural networks perform poorly in applications where rule-based problem solving can be

implemented, such as handling mathematical calculations-something that traditional computers

can do very well.

Neural networks have a long history of development. Early research has its roots in

theoretical explanations of the brain and thinking processes proposed during the 1940s.

During the initial decades, attention focused on the fundamentals of neural computing,

including path breaking work on the formulation and elaboration of basic models to explain
such phenomena as adaptive stimulus-response relations in random networks. The 1960s

were marked by the development of various implementations of neural networks, and in

particular the single-layer "perceptron" by Rosenblatt. The perceptron was a watershed in

neural network research, but for reasons which are discussed at greater length below, the work

led to a schism among researchers generally interested in artificial intelligence. The

controversy that ensued resulted in a decline in government support of neural network research

in the United States after 1969 in favor of other AI techniques .

Nonetheless, work on neural networks continued during the 1970s, with a small number

of dedicated researchers making significant progress on the theoretical foundations. The field

then experienced a tremendous resurgence of interest in the 1980s, after significant

developments had been made in both theory and application. Three general factors appear of

paramount importance in explaining the recent growth of the field: (1) the evolution of the

single-layer perceptron into a multi-layer system; (2) the rapid development of other

technologies, such as semiconductors and computers, that enable researchers to develop,

simulate, and diagnose neural nets of greater sophistication; and (3) significant progress in the

understanding of neurobiological processes (DARPA, 1988). For example, building on

advances in semiconductor integrated circuit technology, Sivilotti, Emerling, and Mead of the

California Institute of Technology designed a VLSI collective decision circuit in 1985. This

development and the subsequent designs of silicon models for neural computation set the stage

for the design of neural network hardware. Even today, most neural nets are simulated on

digital computers. However, the design of silicon models for neural computation brings the

development of dedicated hardware one step nearer.

There are a number of neural networks that have been in the process of development during

the last few years and several are now available in the marketplace. Among those neural
networks marketed commercially, some are software implementations that run on digital

computers, others are hardware implementations (neurocomputers), and still others are a

mixture of software and hardware. Neural networks are being explored for use in applications

as diverse as Kanji character recognition, risk analysis in bank lending, and predicting process

yields on a manufacturing line in real time. Although first generation products have attracted

much attention, it is the promise of the next generation which is capturing the imagination of

neural network researchers and potential users alike.

It is generally held that neural networks represent an emerging field of information

processing that is a significant departure from established computer technology. Their

potential seems enormous, though many problems still have to be solved before the technology

reaches its full potential. The following sections of this paper examine the historical evolution

of neural network community, seeking to shed light on the structural and behavioral

characteristics of a rapidly emerging technology. Specifically, we empirically investigate three

phenomena, which researchers themselves commonly speak of as the bandwagon-effect,

bootlegging, and the grapevine. We also examine the controversy that arises between different
communities, and the institutionalizing mechanisms used to preserve a community's

momentum as it emerges. Given the experience of the neural network community, we will

then discuss the general implications for a model for understanding the emergence of radically

new technologies.

The Emergence of a New Technology

It is proposed that the emergence of a new technology is to a large extent the work of a

dedicated R&D community. The community is formed and nurtured not by administrative

decree, but by the autonomous actions of individual researchers who become intrigued by an

idea and are committed to solving the problems necessary to make that idea work. In a sense,
it is a self-organizing process. Moreover, it is a subtle form of collective action in that it

fosters cooperation among researchers without diminishing the competitiveness which

naturally arises in pursuit of the rewards that will accrue to those who arrive at new knowledge

and its application first. But even though researchers are competing with one another, they

may nonetheless see themselves as members of a larger community fi-om which they can draw

on, and contribute to, in a variety of ways. As will be illustrated below, it is this combination

of cooperation and competition that lies at the heart of R&D communities. This proposition is

clearly illustrated in the case of the neural networks community.

Methodology

The data presented in this paper were obtained by studying the extensive body of scientific

and technical literature generated by the neural network researchers themselves in the course of

their work. Since communication among members is a defined characteristic of the R&D
community, studying the documented, or formal, communication (in the form of papers and

written presentations) among researchers is a convenient means for gaining insight into the

functioning of the community. This literature provides us with a richness of background

information about the technology itself, and subsequently about the behavior and the structure

of the neural network community. In order to further systematize the study of the neural

networks community, an electronic relational database was analyzed containing 2740 abstracts

of neural network articles drawn from journals and conference proceedings since 1969. This

analysis does not focus, however, on the well-established bibliometric methods for analyzing

citation frequency and co-citation clusters. Instead, the abstracts were used in a different

manner: namely, for the detailed information contained within each document.

Indeed, each abstract provides a wealth of reliable information about research activities

within the community. The first advantage is its longitudinal character. By studying an R&D
community over a period of years, it becomes possible to show the dynamic patterns which

emerge. The second advantage lays in the information obtained from the abstracts. Each

abstract tells us who the researchers are and how their numbers vary from year-to-year. The

abstracts also show what topics the researchers are working on and which organizations

employ them. They also reveal the ties which develop over time among the different

researchers and organizations by looking at the co-authorship of the papers and by showing the

mobility of researchers between different organizations. By examining this information during

a two-decade time span, one is able to visualize the structural changes in the R&D community,
and also, to draw inferences about the behavior of the researchers dedicated to the particular

technology.

Be that as it may, the literature does have certain non-trivial limitations. First, formal

communication is relatively limited compared to the amount of informal communication that

likely occurs among researchers at conferences and via telephone and computer networks.

Partly as a consequence, individuals participating in the community may not become visible in

the documented literature. Furthermore, the communication that does get pubhshed is slightly

delayed in the process and not necessarily reflective of all the important details of the research.

There may also be activity in developing the technology that is purposely hidden from public

view by those who see it in their best interest to keep secret.

Nevertheless, given these limitations, the literature can prove to be remarkably useful in

obtaining an initial understanding of the structural and behavioral dynamics of R&D

communities. The analysis presented here seeks to limit the obvious deficiencies of using the

documented literature by minimizing the sensitivity to publication frequency, by not attempting

to ascribe more or less importance to a particular publication, and by analyzing the data

historically. Thus, for example, we are not seeking to understand absolute magnitudes so
much as the dynamic trends over time, and we are not seeking to uncover technical secrets so

much as obtaining a basic understanding of the people involved, the nature of their work, who

they worked with, where they worked, and when they worked. Taken together, the data

culled from the literature can provide a comprehensive picture of change over time within the

community.

The growth of the neural networks community

An analysis of the neural networks database was conducted to determine the number of

individual researchers worldwide, who were active each year in the research and development

of the technology. If an individual is an author (or co-author) of a journal paper or

presentation on the subject of neural networks in a given year, he is included as a member of

the community; and he continues to be included as a member so long as he continues to be an

author from year-to-year. In this way, membership in the community is not sensitive to

number of publications by an author in a given year. This analysis yields a growth profile of

the neural networks community between 1969 and 1988, which is shown in figure 1. The data

indicate that until 1985, the community was rather small, with no more than 200 researchers

active annually. However, after 1985 the community expanded very rapidly, from about 200

researchers to over 1000, which translates into a compound growth rate of over 60-percent.

During this phase the community blossomed into a disciplinary collage composed of

researchers with backgrounds in physics, computer science, electrical engineering, biological

neuroscience, cognitive science, and linguistics, among others.

Such rapid expansion of a community is frequently explained by the bandwagon-ejfecr,

that is, the rush to join in on a trend, which has less to do with the underlying fundamentals

than with the propensity for people to act on the basis of the actual or perceived actions of

others. The bandwagon-effect contributes to an atmosphere of a race to the emergence of a

 10

V
M
u

68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88

Year

FIGURE 1: Growth of the Neural Networks R&D

Community, 1969-88

new technology, a race for the rewards that accrue to those who are first to stake claims to new

knowledge in the form of patents or papers. The result is the same regardless of the

motivations of the individual researchers involved, whether it be fame, fortune or fad: a chain

reaction that leads to an exponential growth of the community. The bandwagon-effect is

significant because it underscores the large element of interdependence among researchers in

their decision to participate in a technology's development. They undoubtedly influence each

other. It is interesting to note that in the case of neural networks, we found the bandwagon-

effect to occur similarly in both public and private sectors and in different countries.

An influential member of the neural networks community. Carver Mead, observes: "In a

field like neural networks, one is usually too optimistic in the short run, but one is never

optimistic enough in the long run" (DARPA, 1988). The bandwagon-effect may be fueled by

an excessive degree of optimism among researchers, and may ultimately lead to the
 11

proliferation of hyperbole in the form of unfounded and unrealistic expectations about the

technology's potential. This is particularly true in conjunction with the mass media, where the

neural networks community has received its fair share of "hype." The DARPA report

addresses this issue directly, stating that the neural networks field lends itself readily to bold

claims and sensational media headlines, such as proclamations of "thinking computers," and

concludes that it is unlikely to dissipate: "Hyperbole's natural habitat is, after all, the territory

between achievement and promise: the greater the potential of a new and mostly unexplored

avenue of research, the greater the human tendency to imagine it opening pathways to both

Utopia and dystopia."

The proliferation of hype runs against the aspired norms of researchers, who as a group

generally despise self-promoting hucksters who, in search for financial support, dare to

oversell the potential of their research. For example, the founder of one neural networks

company claims, "There is a whole lot of hype and nonsense in the field, which takes away

from the credibility of the people who have been doing legitimate work. There has been

important progress, but some people are grossly over portraying what the machines can do

(Kinoshita and Palevsky, 1987)."

But, while it may well be contemptible to some, hype is a relative concept, and to a certain

extent it may have the positive effect of attracting peoples' attention, including managers,

venture capitalists, govemment officials-all of whom might have funds to allocate. Perhaps

most important, is the need to attract other researchers to the field. Although neural network

researchers may shrink when they see overly optimistic assessments of their field in print, they

also understand the need for others (including students) to join in and become seriously

committed to solving the difficult problems which confront them. The challenges may simply

be too immense to be realistically accomplished in the near future unless the community attains
 12

a certain level of panicipation, which researchers refer to as critical mass. For example, a

leading academic researcher in neural networks and director of the DARPA study states, "I

believe all the hype. What worries me is that many people don't realize how hard the problems

are. Even if something works in the laboratory, it still takes ten years to get it out in the

marketplace (Kinoshita and Palevsky, 1987)." The trick lies in generating a healthy optimism

that creates enthusiasm rather than alienation among potential entrants to the community.

Cycles of Enthusiasm and Despair

The natural motivation of researchers to succeed in developing and applying new

knowledge, in combination with a tendency toward optimism, yielded a very dramatic rise in

the level of participation in the neural network community indicative of the bandwagon-effect.

If the field is fertile and matches its promise, perhaps it will continue to enjoy a healthy

expansion in participation. But what will happen if researchers discover, in the course of their

experiments, that the problems they face are in fact much too difficult to resolve in the

foreseeable future? Or that other technologies appear to be more promising? If researchers are

so fast to enter a field, is it also likely that they might be quick to leave because their overly

ambitious expectations cannot be met?

A closer examination of the community's growth profile in the pre-bandwagon phase

reveals a pattern that is suggestive of the cycles of enthusiasm and despair that might befall a

research community. Figure 2 shows the growth of the neural network community over the

sixteen year period from 1970 to 1985, and makes a distinction between the core group of

researchers (those who are usually active from year-to-year) and the rest of the community.

Specifically, the core group is defined to include researchers who were actively participating in

the community in at least three years of a given five-year period. Notice that the core group is

relatively small (on average, between ten- to twenty-percent of the total community) and fairly
 13

stable in size over the entire period, as should be expected. They are the researchers who keep

the faith regardless of the obstacles that lie ahead, the true believers in the technology even

when others disparage their work, the hopelessly committed. Success in their effort to push

the field forward will preserve their place as founding fathers and gamer the respect of their

colleagues. However, sadly, if progress is slow or elusive, they will suffer a reputation as

second-rate researchers with rather poor judgment.

Figure 2 also illustrates the cyclical pattern of participation among researchers whose

commitment is less enduring than the core group. It is apparent from the data that the majority

of researchers active in any given year are involved only briefly. Why this pattern arises is

open to speculation. Perhaps it derives from the tendency for researchers to dapple in different

areas which are tangential to their primary area of interest. It also might arise from the tradeoff

researchers make in judging the likely potential of succeeding with one particular avenue of

250

-
200
Total Community
(R^2 = 0.88)
-
13 150

68 70 72 74 76 7J 82 84 86
Year

HGURE 2: Growth of the Neural Network R&D Community

with Comparison of Core Group to the Total
community
 14

research versus another. Or it might to some extent occur as master's and doctoral students

graduate and pursue other interests. In any case, the data suggest a degree of fluidity of

participation in neural network community that stems from the movement of researchers

between the variety of problem areas, given their expertise, they might pursue.

This fluidity of researchers into and out of the community is shown in greater detail in

Figure 3. The database was partitioned into five, three-year periods in order to examine the

extent of participation from period-to-period. In each period researchers were classified as

new entrants (those not active in the previous period), sustainers (those also active in the

previous period) and exits (those who were active in the last period by not in the present one).

The degree of turnover from period to period is quite remarkable, with many researchers

joining and others exiting each period.

800

600

400-

«i 200-

-200 -

-400
 15

An analysis of the extent to which neural network researchers who having left in one

period return to the community in a later period was also conducted. It indicates that between

10- and 20-percent of entrants in a period (three through five) were previously involved in the

community.

The foregoing analysis suggests that R&D communities, in their emergent stage, have a life
of their own largely free of the formality that comes from organized programs of research,

carefully budgeted and managed by a professional bureaucracy. Indeed, there is an air of

informality and dynamism that seemingly derives from the independent decisions of

researchers in search of promising new technological frontiers. How else could a community

grow so rapidly or researchers move so fluidly, if not otherwise uninhibited by the red-tape

usually associated with organizational decision-making in the public or private sector? But if

researchers do act independently, how do they acquire the resources to sustain their effort?

The funding dilemma

The astounding growth of the neural networks community cannot be ascribed to a dramatic

increase in public funding for neural network research. Although funding will certainly

increase in the coming years (this appears from the intentions of the DARPA study), it was not

likely the trigger for the dramatic increase in the number of researchers which occurred after

1985. Instead, the neural network community sustained itself and fostered its emergence not

so much from formal public and private sector funding, as from dedicated researchers working

more or less in the "shadows" of the laboratory. The terminology common among researchers

is bootlegging, a word used to describe the practice of scrapping together resources to work,

more or less surreptitiously, on interesting problems not sanctioned under existing budgets. It

might take the form of working during lunch, evenings, or weekends, or taking advantage of

the slack resources that typically exist in laboratories, or even using one's personal resources.
 16

The practice of bootlegging is probably as old as the research laboratory itself, and seems

to be a central element of every good story retold by researchers about their heroic effort to

succeed in developing a radically new technology in spite of the powers that be. Bootlegging

is a necessity-indeed, today it is even sanctioned by some laboratories— because of the very

nature of research in new technologies. Important research is very difficult to judge in its early

stages and thus, it is more likely to be rejected in favor of less risky, incremental work when

formally evaluated. Researchers dedicated to a new and unorthodox technology are confronted

with a difficult dilemma: they need more proof that their work will yield results before

receiving resources, but without resources they are unable to do precisely that. Bootlegging

enables fledgling research to go forward without the full knowledge and scrutiny of managers

and other researchers, to a point at which the promise of the idea is clear.

To investigate the extent of bootlegging by neural network researchers, we analyzed the

sponsorship of research presented at the First Annual International Neural Network Society

meeting held in Boston in 1988. Of the 527 papers presented, 324 (61%) mentioned no

sponsor at all. Only 19 papers (4%) reported research which was at least partly funded by the

National Science Foundation. We found 43 papers (8%) that were at least partly funded by

one of the US Defense Department agencies. Corporate involvement occurred in 108 instances

(20%). One paper even described itself as "privately funded research," without any ties with

the author's "current affiliations." One participant to the conference observes that in terms of

travel money alone (perhaps a few million dollars), very little could be accounted for by

funding agencies. Thus, although public research funds may start pouring into the neural

network research laboratories, this kind of support clearly did not provide the trigger for the

present interest in the field.

 17

The relevant lesson from the practice of bootlegging is that researchers are driven by

interesting problems, and not necessarily by what is looked upon favorably by funding

agencies. Funding does not create a field, but rather allows it to flourish. If researchers make

progress in a new area, the funding will hopefully follow suit. Whether it does indeed follow

suit depends upon the researchers' fight for legitimacy among their peers, who may hold

conflicting opinions about which research agendas are most promising.

The fight for legitimacy has been a particularly intense struggle in the case of neural

networks. As stated previously, a relatively small number of dedicated researchers continued

to work on neural network technology throughout the sevennes— the so-called "wilderness

years"--even though little funding was forthcoming and the technical feasibility of their

concepts was heavily attacked by other researchers. At the heart of the controversy is the 1969

book, Perceptrons: An Introduction to Computational Geometry, written by two prominent

MIT researchers, Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert, who seriously questioned the potential

of neural networks through a meticulous examination of the perceptron.

To Minsky and Papert, neural networks were (and still are) technically uninteresting,

especially in comparison to the promise of rule-based AI techniques. But to neural network

researchers, their treatise was seen as a blatantly underhanded attack to discredit neural

network research in order to sway government funding away from the field. A leading neural

network researcher recalls, "My impression was that Minsky and Papert defined the perceptron

narrowly enough that it couldn't do anything interesting. ...It looked like an attempt to show

that the perceptron was no good. It wasn't fair (Kinoshita and Palevsky, 1987)." In defense

of their book, Papert admits:

Yes, there was some hostility in the energy behind the

 18

research reported in Perceptrons, and there is some degree of

annoyance at the way the new movement has developed; part
of our drive came, as we quite plainly acknowledged in the
book, from the fact that funding and research energy were
being dissipated on what still appear to me (since the story of
new, powerful network mechanisms is seriously
exaggerated) to be misleading attempts to use connectionist
methods in practical applications. But most of the
motivation for Perceptrons came from more fundamental
concerns, many of which cut cleanly across the division
between net workers and programmers (Papert, 1988).

For his part, Minsky also admits that the attack on neural networks may have been too ardent,

but defends his book claiming, "We were faced with a shortage of researchers in AI, and we

were watching people throwing away their lives on perceptrons.... You would have to be crazy

to be doing perceptrons when you could get so much more dramatic results with AI (Kinoshita

andPalevsky, 1987)."

The bitter controversy lingers on and is perhaps as intense today as in 1969. (In an excerpt

provided in Appendix A, Papert muses over the controversy in a recent and somewhat

humorous allegory.) Although those within the neural network community contend that the

limits posed in Minsky and Papert's book have by now been overcome, both authors remain

skeptical about the future of neural nets: "Indeed, Minsky and I. ..suggest that the entire

structure of recent connectionist theories might be built on quicksand: it is all based on toy-

sized problems with no theoretical analysis to show that performance will be maintained when

the models are scaled up to realistic size (Papert, 1988)." Indeed, Papert goes so far as to

characterize the excitement among neural network researchers as buoyed by a "sustaining

myth" that fits with the current intellectual fad to move away from rationalism toward more

holistic ways of thinking.

In response to these attacks, neural network proponents have launched their own
 19

vociferous criticisms of their detractors, suggesting that interest in neural networks stems, in

part, from the disappointing results of Al research— this, despite the massive amount of funding

the field has received over the years. Thus, in their view, it is the failure of AI that is breathing

life into neural networks, and such diatribes as those of Minsky and Papert simply mask the

declining promise of the established AI research agenda. However, in a more conciliatory

tone, one commentator reflects on the controversy in this way:

What Minsky and Papert saw in the 1960s were researchers

[who] were so enthusiastic about small successes that it
blinded them to the real difficulties of the problems that they
were trying to solve. Minsky and Papert saw understanding
such important issues as representation, learning, and
computational complexity in neural networks as fundamental
to real progress in the field. Given the still shaky theoretical
foundations of the field and the real similarities between the
cuirent wave of enthusiasm and that of the 1960s, its hard to
fault Minsky and Papert for reminding us of these
similarities (Will, 1988).

Despite the whirling controversy and despite the lack of funding for neural network

research after the publication of Perceptron, some strong-minded researchers continued to

believe in the potential of neural networks. Their diligence during lean years eventually paid

off in the early eighties, as their ideas gained favor among a rapidly growing number of

scientists and engineers employed across a diversity of disciplines and industries. The

organizational and geographical spread of the neural networks community is examined in the

following section.

Diffusion of participation and the grapevine

As described in the introductory section, R&D communities can extend beyond industrial
boundaries, such that technological development is not wholely the domain of firms. R&D
communities can consist of researchers employed by a variety of organizations, cutting across
 20

university, industry, and government sectors. The neural networks case exemplifies this fact

quite clearly.

For our purposes, the organizations involved in neural network research were classified as

being either within the private or public sector. This second group is a mixture of university

and government laboratories, although predominantly university. The distribution of

researchers between the two sectors is shown in figure 4. Since 1969, a cumulative total of

about 3800 man-years of research has been devoted to the development of neural networks.

The fast majority of that effort took place in the public sector. Although industrial researchers

had grown in numbers during the bandwagon-phase (reaching 18-percent in the last few

years), prior to 1985 only between two- to seven-percent of all researchers where in the private

sector.

The neural network community is an excellent example of how the efforts of academic

researchers can contribute to the practical development of a new technology. Although neural

networks have their roots in an academic setting, they have emerged in the eighties as a

commercial activity. Many academic members of the community attempt to demonstrate the

commercial viability of their research, and some even participate in private organizations in a

variety of capacities. Like the more well known examples of semiconductor technology or

genetic engineering, neural networks suggest that science and technology can and does become

unified within R&D communities.

The neural network community is also quite international in scope, with more than a dozen

countries participating. Indeed, researchers from relatively smaller industrial countries, such

as Finland, have played an instrumental role in sustaining the technology's development

through the seventies and now figure prominently in the field. Figure 5 shows
 21

1000

Private Sector
800-

u D Public Sector
600-
u
400-

I 200

" " " '» "

'

I r t I 'l
'

l fr"V" >' " "

|

69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87

Year

FIGURE 4: Sectoral Distribution of the Neural Network

R&D Community

the international distribution of researchers among the six major industrial countries (the United

Kingdom, West Germany, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States^) involved in the

development of neural networks. In the post- 1985 bandwagon phase, approximately seventy-

to eighty-percent of the community resided in these six countries. It is interesting to note that

the distribution among these countries varies over the entire period from 1969 to 1988, but that

since 1985, the U.S. share has dominated the community, with about sixty-percent of the total.

Thus, the rapid growth of the neural network community has been centered most strongly in

the U.S.

As the neural network community grew in the period from 1982 onward, it became more

widely diffused across public and private sector organizations. One way of viewing the extent

''According to the NSF, these six countries account for about 85-percent of the world's total research and
development expyenditures (NSF, 1989).
22
 23

100.0 « • —
o Private Sector
•a

75.0 -

6
m
a.
o 50.0 -
f-

3 =
Z .5
-
25.0
o u
c o
S E
0.0 J I 1 1 i_

81 83 87 89

Year

FIGURE 6: Diffusion of Neural Network R&D Community

During Period of Rapid Growth

Although the public sector community had consistently been more widely diffused than the

private sector, it nevertheless also experienced a similar increase in the number of participating

university and government laboratories, from about 25 in 1982 to nearly 250 in 1988. Thus,

in both sectors, we found a rapid diffusion of the community across different organizations.

Simultaneous with the growth and diffusion of the community, we see a tremendous

increase in the number of firms that for the most part specialize in the development and

application of neural networks. These finns are typically small in size, and in many cases they

are ventures formed specifically for exploiting neural network technology. Investigation of the

database led to the identification of 36 such firms. It appears that these firms form a bridge in

the technology's transition from the public to the private sector. It is commonplace to find

academic researchers deeply involved with the new ventures, taking part in their incorporation.
 24

participating on the board of directors, acting as chief scientist or technical advisors, or

channeling their graduates to positions as key members of the research staff.

The rapid growth and diffusion of the community likely has a beneficial effect on the

commercialization of neural networks. More and more researchers, employed in an expanding

array of organizations, seeking to develop and apply the technology in a increasing variety of

ways, should almost certainly contribute further to the advances already made. As the

community expands and spreads, it develops a powerful momentum that derives from the force

of its numbers and the ingenuity of researchers independently working in laboratories in every

comer of the globe.

However, the advantages of this expansion come with a cost: the diminishing ability of

researchers to easily communicate with one another. This is a heavy cost, indeed, since it is

the communication of information and knowledge among researchers that holds a community

together. As a community grows in size, it quickly becomes a virtual impossibility for any

given researcher to frequently communicate information to all others without some degree of

coordination or structure. One formal means of communication, which will be discussed at

greater length below, is through the published literature. However, this is a very rudimentary

communication mechanism with severe limitations given the constant flow of new, complex

information abounding from laboratories. Instead, another mechanism is needed: the

grapevine.

The grapevine is an informal, but remarkably efficient network of researchers who facilitate

the flow of information among different laboratories. Chances are the researchers are well

acquainted with each other, perhaps having previously worked or studied together, or having

become ftiends at a conference while commiserating over the years spent toiling over similar
 25

problems. Moreover, the core researchers discussed above are likely central nodes in the

grapevine. Indeed, over the two decades which have passed since 1969, a highly

interconnected network among the different organizations involved in neural network research

has developed. The network, illustrated in Figure 7, was analyzed by examining the database

for instances where researchers in two different organizations were co-authors, or where a

particular researcher (permanently or temporarily) changed his laboratory affiliation over the

twenty-year period. The obvious assumption here is that researchers who collaborate on a

paper are also likely to talk with one another even though they are not (or no longer) working

in the same laboratory. In any case, this is possibly one of the most stringent criteria one can

use to define a link between two organizations, such that the true grapevine is likely to be far

more elaborate.

Notwithstanding this strict definition, a complex network of interconnected organizations

appears that is likely representative of the core structure of the grapevine. The neural network

grapevine, which in total connects 1 15 organizations, provides further supporting evidence for

our basic proposition of the existence of R&D communities. Over the twenty year period, a

total of 568 different organizations have been identified in the database. Thus, 20-percent of

them are connected in the core grapevine. It is interesting to note that industrial research

laboratories frequently appear in the central nodes. Moreover, while U.S. and European

organizations appear fairly well integrated, Japanese organizations are less well connected to

the core and some are part of a second, smaller network which is disconnected from the core.

Further analysis indicates that the complexity of the neural network grapevine has evolved

over time and become particularly pronounced in the bandwagon phase of the community's

maturation. In the pre- 1985 era, very few organizations were linked together, and those that

were constituted mostly of simple, bilateral linkages. It was not until after 1985 that the first
 26

NON-INIXJSTRY

FIGURE 7: The Neural Network Interorganizational Grapevine

semblance of a more far-reaching grapevine became evident, and in the last year alone it has

doubled in density.

So far, in analyzing the neural network community we have observed a number of

dynamics that may hold special significance in understanding the emergence of a new

technology. We have seen a community, which after years of wavering enthusiasm and

despair, eventually take root, grow rapidly, and spread across hundreds of organizations in the

public and private sector. While at the same time the community maintained its contiguity,
 27

preserving the flow of information among its members via a rather extensive grapevine. But

this remarkable surge of activity is not alone sufficient to ensure the success of the neural

network community in commercializing its technology. The R&D community must continue to
sustain a high level effort, or, in the vernacular of researchers, preserve its momentum. In the

following section we describe some of the basic, and fairly obvious, institutions that evolve

within R&D communities in order to facilitate their internal functioning.

Institutionalizing meclianisms

The preservation of a R&D community's momentum can be accomplished by a number of

institutionalizing mechanisms, many of which can be seen in the neural networks case. The

main purpose of these institutions is to ensure the community's healthy development in the

post-bandwagon phase, by structuring the entry of new researchers into the field, easing the

exchange of knowledge and information among members, and working to secure the funds

necessary to sustain the effort long enough until the technology becomes commercially viable.

First of all, formal professional societies get established. Thus, the neural networks

community created its "International Neural Network Society" (INNS), which now lists 3,500

members fi-om 38 countries (with students comprising over one-fifth of the membership). The

primary objective of such societies is to facilitate the transfer of information and knowledge

among community members through organizing gatherings, such as conferences, workshops,

and lecture series, and sponsoring the publication of a journal. In the words of its president,

the Society works as an "interdisciplinary catalyst," with the goal of providing "information,

education and a means of communication" across a range of disciplines in science and

engineering (Widrow, no date). Toward this end, the INNS created its journal Neural

Networks in 1988 and organizes an annual conference. (Another publication, the Journal of

Neural Network Computing: Technology, Design and Applications , has been established
 28

independent of the INNS.) The force behind these institutions tends to be the core group of

researchers earlier identified, who serve as officers of the society and who sit on the editorial

boards of the journals.

Beside allowing for the presentation of recent work, conferences provide an opportunity

for the interpersonal exchanges that aid significantly in the solidification of collegial

relationships— key to the functioning of the grapevine when researchers return to the

laboratory. Between 1988 and early 1989, we were able to identify thirty-one conferences

which were partly or totally devoted to neural networks technology. Perhaps the premier

conference was the First Annual INNS Meeting in Boston in 1988, with over 600 papers

presented by researchers from all comers of the neural network community.

Another mechanism serving to speed the communication process, are simple newsletters

that are written to quickly disseminate the latest news on progress in the field. They can be in

the form of a brief booklet (like the Neural Network Review), or even a "gossip sheet" (such

as Neurocomputers and Intelligence), produced fairly inexpensively by freelancing researchers

with a penchant for scuttlebutt. One variant on this is the firm-sponsored newsletter, such as

Neuralware's Connections, which serves more as a means for publicizing products and recent

applications.

Perhaps the speediest and most advanced mechanism for exchanging information is the

communication network system that links laboratory computers across the world. In

particular, the invention of the "interest group" or "bulletin board" format on these networks

provides an astonishingly fast and efficient means for mass communication among members of

the community. Although it is a electronic medium, like the telephone and the facsimile

machine, the computer network interest group is more like the traditional printed publication in
 29

its ability to reach large numbers of researchers simultaneously, only much more quickly. A
neural networks interest group has already been in operation for at least a year, and the INNS

intends to sponsor its own.

Another important institutionalizing mechanism, used primarily for the codification and

transfer of the community's knowledge base, is the textbook. A number of neural network

textbooks have appeared (among leading publishers is the MIT Press, with already nine

textbooks in print). Textbooks also play a central role in the education of new recruits into the

community, especially when woven into a coherent curriculum. This points to yet another

mechanism, the formal graduate research program, which provides a direct means for

channeling young researchers into the community and ensures that knowledge of the field will

be handed-down from generation to generation. Therefore, it is not astonishing that leading

universities have started offering graduate programs focused on neural networks. Already

seven in number, these universities are highly central in the community grapevine. Along with

the formation of graduate programs, specialized research centers and laboratories are also

established. In this way, the community gains recognition as a separate entity within

university settings, just as it does within the corporate world (through the creation of

specialized new firms).

Lastly, there are structured efforts to ensure that funds will flow into the field in sufficient

quantity to support researchers who are committed to developing the technology. The DARPA
study, which was conducted with the help of more than fifty neural network researchers, is

just one example of the community's effort to gain financial sponsorship. There have also

been specific conferences and workshops dedicated to bringing together researchers with

potential sponsors, in order to educate funding sources about the potential of neural networks

and to educate researcher's about the intricate process of securing funds.

 30

There is very little novelty to the institutionalizing mechanisms we have observed in the

neural network community. Nonetheless, what is interesting is that these institutions emerged

from the grassroots of the community, with remarkable speed and strength, and without central

direction. It is truly a self-organizing process— the product of numerous researchers acting

independently, but moving with a synchronism that derives from a shared goal. Taken

together, these institutions are quite effective in preserving the community's momentum.

Discussion

Clearly, technological development is a complex process, but nevertheless the neural

networks case suggests some basic elements that may contribute to a general theory of how the

emergence of a new technology occurs. In this section, we offer a number of propositions that

might fit within such a theory, given our observations of the structural and behavioral

characteristics of the neural networks R&D community. It is readily admitted that this

discussion is incomplete and that the propositions cannot adequately describe all of the

subtieness of technological development as it might actually unfold. Rather, our intent here is

to capture the essential "internal" dynamics--the functioning of R&D communities—that might

become one component of a more comprehensive theory of emerging technologies.

First, we propose the theory begin with the assumption that technology is, in essence, a

body of knowledge. 5 Even though the ultimate goal may be to produce something, the

currency of R&D communities is not so much actual things as it is the ideas, or theories, about

how and why things work the way they do. Therefore, technological development can be

^The idea that technology is essentially knowledge has gained acceptance among scholars in several disciplines.

For example, see Arrow (1962), Layton (1974), and Constant (1980). Constant, in particular, has pioneered the effort
to understand technological communities with his study of the turbojet. The work of Kaiz and Allen (1985) focuses on
technology development as an information processing and problem-solving activity. The intent here is to link the

concepts of information, knowledge, and problem-solving into a unified model of technological development.
 31

understood as an intellectual process that evolves over time, whereby new knowledge is

created and applied in order to construct a new product or process. Of course, emerging

technologies are not developed from scratch but are a combination of newly created knowledge

and existing knowledge drawn from other epistemic realms. However, in the early stage of a

technology's emergence, this body of knowledge is incomplete— one simply does not know

everything one needs to know in order to make the technology work. The areas in which

knowledge is lacking can be characteristically viewed as problems. If the technology is to be

successfully reduced to practice, then new knowledge, in the form of solutions to the

problems, will have to be found.

The central actors in this process are the individual researchers who become dedicated to

solving the problems, and it is they who set the process in motion with their efforts to create

and apply knowledge. In the course of their work, researchers perform three basic activities:

(a) they produce information, (b) they transform information into knowledge, or in other

words, they solve problems, and (c) they communicate information and knowledge to each

other. We propose that the rate of progress in a technology's emergence is a function of how

quickly problems are solved, which, in turn, depends on the amount of information produced,

the number of diverse solutions attempted, and the extent to which information and knowledge

is communicated among researchers. We expect that the more information available to a

researcher, the more likely he is to arrive at a useful solution. Moreover, we anticipate that the

more diversity in the types of solutions attempted, the more likely that critical solutions will be

found. Lastly, we hypothesize that communication between researchers enhances the

probability of finding useful solutions.

It is reasonable to assume that researchers are rational, in the economic sense that they are

motivated by self-interest: that is, they are eager to solve problems because there are rewards
 32

for those who do. The researcher's objective is to maximize the amount of knowledge he

produces and can lay claim to before other researchers, because these claims have potential

value. The actual value of a claim is contingent upon whether or not all problems necessary for

reaching commercialization are resolved and the length of time taken. Expressed in another

way, for a given piece of knowledge, it is more valuable in use, and the sooner it is used the

more value it will have. A researcher need not produce all of the knowledge required to

commercialize a technology, as long as his own knowledge claims are secured.

Since his choice is guided by the objective to maximize knowledge claims, the researcher is

motivated to participate in those communities, within the realm of his disciplinary expertise, in

which he believes there is a good probability of finding solutions that yield him valuable

claims. If the actual probability is equal to or greater than expected (the task of solving

problems is easier than anticipated), then the researcher will likely remain in the field;

however, if it is lower than expected (solving problems is harder than anticipated), then the

researcher might switch to another community with a higher perceived probability of success.

The switching behavior of a researcher is moderated by the length of time spent contributing to

a technology's development and the amount of knowledge claims accumulated. A researcher's

specialized knowledge becomes a sunk cost: the more knowledge specific to a technology the

researcher accumulates over time, the less likely he is to exit a community prior to reaping the

rewards that come with reaching commercialization.

Furthermore, the researcher's decision to enter or exit a community is not a one-time

choice, but rather is subject to frequent reconsideration based on new information. The

attractiveness of developing a particular technology changes over time, as more information is

produced and researchers reevaluate the probabilities of successfully solving the problems they

face. Its attractiveness also may be influenced by changes in other technologies, and indeed a
 33

variety of other events, all of which will be reflected in the researcher's decision.

A primary activity of researchers is to produce information and transform it into

knowledge. By "information production" we mean the collection of new data through

observation and experimentation. Knowledge is a distinct entity from information in that

knowledge enables the researcher to do something (know-how) or explain something (know-

why). Having information does not necessarily imply either.6 The researcher first must make

sense of the information available to him— the cognitive process of transforming information

into knowledge-in order to solve problems.

The processes of information production and transformation are time consuming; therefore,

any individual researcher can only accomplish a certain amount of effort in a given period of

time. The information he produces and the solutions he pursues are an expression of the

researcher's own judgment and creativity, although he may be influenced by people with

whom he collaborates. Unfortunately, not all attempted solutions will work satisfactorily. The

probability that a particular solution will work successfully can only be subjectively

determined a pr/on, and this is likely to change over time as researchers generate new

information in attempting to implement solutions. Moreover, the relevance of any bit of

information (in that it might contribute to the successful solution of a problem) cannot be

determined a priori. For this reason, the value of information is less certain than that of

knowledge.

The amount of information and knowledge available to a researcher depends upon how

^For example, a researcher runs an experiment and obtains negative results. He cannot use the information in the
practical sense that enables him to do or explain something-that is, it is not knowledge. Nevertheless, the
information may be instructive and eventually prove key in creating knowledge. Moreover, even though the
information is not valuable in that it should be published or patented, it does have value in the sense that one who is

aware of it will not waste time discovering it again.

 34

much he can produce himself, or receive in the process of communicating with others. The

communication of information and knowledge implies that a researcher can also gather

information and knowledge produced by another researcher, and disseminate to others that

which he produces or learns. For the most part, information is communicated informally by

means of interpersonal conversations, whereas knowledge is communicated in the form of

documented claims, such as with the submission of papers to refereed journals or patent

applications.

The communication of information among researchers is influenced by the existence of

organizational boundaries between researchers and their (and their organization's) economic

interests. Organizational boundaries are important for two reasons: first they give rise to

information asymmetries among researchers because they impede the flow of information and

increase the cost of information gathering. As a result, organizational boundaries can slow the

rate of production of knowledge within a community by reducing the amount of information

available to each researcher. However, organizational boundaries can also enhance knowledge

production to the extent it increases the diversity of problem solutions pursued by the

community as a whole, since researchers in different organizations are likely to have different

information sets.

To illustrate this point, assume the extreme conditions. In the first case, as the research

community grows, all researchers are employed by the same organization. Thus, all

researchers are exposed to the same information set, but the diversity of solutions performed is

limited by the researchers' mutual influence. In the second case, as the community grows,

each researcher is employed in a separate organization. Thus, each researcher is working fi"om

a different, limited set of information and performing independent solutions, such that the

diversity of attempted solutions is maximized. Simply stated, in one situation each researcher
 35

in the community has a wealth of information but a limited number of approaches in solving

the problems being confronted; in the other situation, although the community can generate the

same amount of information, the amount available to any particular researcher is small and the

variety of approaches taken is great.

The communication impedance effect of organizational boundaries is overcome via

researchers who act as technological gatekeepers— that is, researchers who tend to communicate

with others in different organizations (Allen, 1979). Given the economically rational behavior

of researchers, the communication of information across boundaries likely occurs as a form of

quid pro quo (von Hippel, 1988). Furthermore, information is more likely to be the trading

object of grapevines than is knowledge, because the value of information is indeterminate and

because knowledge (which does have potential value) needs to be formally documented when

disclosed in order to secure its value for the inventor.

The propositions presented in this discussion, taken together, suggest that R&D
communities are freely functioning, loosely connected coalitions of researchers, who in their

search for promising opponunities to expand on the frontier of knowledge, become dedicated

to developing a common set of ideas. It is a self-organizing process, which grows out of the

efforts of researchers who endeavor to solve interesting problems as they lock themselves into

a struggle with nature. As researchers probe the frontier, sometimes they may find it stubborn

and unyielding, and in other instances they may uncover an area which gives way to rich

possibilities for the development of a new technology.

The speed at which a promising technology develops depends on how rapidly a community

forms and grows, and the structural and behavioral characteristics the community adopts as it

matures. Some characteristics promote cooperation between researchers, while others foster
 36

competition. In combination, both elements are important contributors to the swift conduct of

the problem-solving process: the competition that breeds with the rapid growth and diffusion

of the community, escalating the amount of information produced and increasing the diversity

of solutions pursued; and the cooperation which flows from the grapevine, enabling

researchers to exchange notes on the latest experiments and to pursue solutions without

squandering their precious time on known lost causes.

Conclusion

The objective of this research is to draw attention to the notion that R&D communities exist
and that they may play an instrumental role in the emergence of new technologies. Although

the importance of academic communities in the operation of science is generally accepted, very

little is understood about how communities may contribute to technological progress. This

continues to be the case, despite the fact that it is fairly common to hear people talk of entities,

such as the "software development community," which are so intimately involved with

technological development. What does it mean to be a member of a community? How do

communities function? Can their internal operation tell us anything about the rate at which

researchers are succeeding in solving the problems they face?

Using the development of neural networks as an example, we have investigated a few of

the structural and behavioral characteristics of an R&D community. Specifically, we

empirically assessed the growth and diffusion of the community using the literature published

by neural networks researchers as a source of information. The data indicate that the neural

network community emerged with great speed, indicative of a bandwagon-effect, but only after

experiencing many years of wavering enthusiasm and despair. The community survived

intense controversy and lack of financial support, to persevere on the dedication of a small

number of researchers who eventually succeeded in advancing their ideas to a state whereby
 37

they began to attract the commitment of others. As it grew rapidly, the community also became

widely dispersed across hundreds of organizations in the public and private sector, and was

held together by a rather elaborate grapevine that preserved the flow of information between

laboratories.

It is unwise to read too much into the present finding without the careful examination of

other R&D communities. However, the emergence of neural networks is suggestive of a self-

organizing process that arises from the grassroots. It is hard to believe, given the evidence,

that the direction of research can be centrally planned. The emergence of a new technology

appears very much to be the result of independent forces, which become unified by a common

commitment to a set of ideas and to solving the problems necessary to make these ideas work.

It also suggests that technological progress might not be accelerated simply by brute force

application of manpower alone, without the benefit of organizational diversity.

A prominent scholar with a keen interest in understanding the economics of information

and organization, Arrow (1974), suggests that "...organizations are a means of achieving the

benefits of collective action in situations in which the price system fails." Following in a

similar vein, it may very well be that R&D communities are a means of achieving the benefits
of collective action in situations in which the single organization fails. Given this perspective,

it may be helpful to view a community as a meta-organizational structure for accomplishing

certain goals reasonably beyond the reach of an individual or single organization.

An organization, such as the firm, can be quite effective in developing a new technology

single-handedly, especially if the choice among problem solutions is narrow. The organization

facilitates the coordination of researchers' activities, reinforces cooperation, and ensures that

the production of information and knowledge is done without duplication and is readily
 38

available to all researchers. However, in situations where the choice among problem solutions

is less straightforward, communities may provide a more effective organizing structure.

Communities promote a diversity of problem solutions attempted by researchers and enhance

competitive pressures to speed the problem solving process. Although communication is more

difficult than within a single organization, it can be improved by the grapevine and the

institutionalizing mechanisms discussed above.

In the course of this analysis, we have attempted to expose the salient characteristics of

communities, all of which are quite familiar phenomena to the researchers who participate in

them. Indeed, we have drawn largely on the observations and vocabulary of the researchers

themselves in our descriptions of the internal functioning of the community. Many neural

network researchers undoubtedly see themselves as members of a larger community, and

furthermore, they have an intuitive understanding— indeed, only as they could have— of the

dynamics of their field: such notions as bandwagons, critical mass, bootlegging,

controversies, grapevines, and momentum are not rarefied abstractions but well-known

concepts which are interwoven into the fabric of laboratory life. It is difficult to foresee any

comprehensive understanding of emerging technologies that could ignore the role R&D
communities might play. The time is ripe for funher research.
 39

References

Allen, Thomas J. (1977) Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allman, William F. (1987) "Designing Computers That Think the Way We Do," Technology Review,
May/June: 59-65.

Arrow, Kenneth J. {\91A) The Limits of Organization. New York: Norton.

Constant, Edward W. (1980) The Origins of the Turbojet. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

DARPA Neural Networks Study. (1988) Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International Press, 1988.

Hecht-Nielsen, Robert. (1988) "Neurocompuling: Picking the Human Brain," /£££ 5pec<rum 25, 3: 36-41.

Hopfield, John J. (1988) "Artificial Neural Networks," IEEE Circuits and Devices Magazine, Sept.: 3-10.

Johnson, George. (1986) Machinery of the Mind: Inside the New Science of Artificial Intelligence.
Redmond, Wash.: Microsoft Press.

Katz, Ralph and Thomas J. Allen. (1985) "Organizational Issues in the Introduction of New Technologies," in
P.R. Kleindorfer, ed.. The Management of Productivity and Technology in Manufacturing. New York:
Plenum Press.

Kinoshita, June and Nicholas G. Palevsky. (1987) "Computing with Neural Networks," High Technology,
May: 24-31.

Kohonen, Teuvo. (1988) "An Introduction to Neural Computing," Neural Networks 1: 3-16.

Layton, Edward T. (1974) "Technology as Knowledge," Technology and Culture 15: 31-41.

Malina, Debbie. (1988) "Will the Real Intelligent Machine Please Stand Up? Mass High Tech 6, 15: 1, 33.

National Science Foundation. (1988) International Science and Technology Data Update: 1988. (NSF 89- 307)
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Papert, Seymour. (1988) "One Al or Many?" Dcedalus 1 17, 1: 1-14.

Tank, David W. and John J. Hopfield. (1987) "Collective Computation in Neuronlike Circuits," Scientific
Am^ncan, December: 104-114.

von Hippel, Eric A. (1987) "Cooperation Between Rivals: Informal Know-how Trading," Research Policy 16:

291-302.

Widrow, Bernard. (No Date). Letter to member of the International Neural Networks Society.

Will, Craig A. (1988) "Perceptrons Revisited," Neural Network Review 2, 2: 42-49.

Ziman, John. (1984) An Introduction to Science Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 40

Appendix A

PAPERTS ALLEGORY OF THE TWO SCIENCES:

NEURAL NETWORKS AND ARTIHCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Once upon a time two daugther sciences were bom to the new science of cybernetics. One sister was
natural, with features inherited from the study of the brain, from the way nature does things. The other was
artificial, related from the beginning to the use of computers. Each of the sister sciences tried to build models
of intelligence, but from very difficult materials. The natural sister built hermodels (called neural networks)
out of mathematically purified neurones. The artificial sister built her models out of computer programs.

In their first bloom of youth the two were equally successful and equally pursued by suitors from other
knowledge. They got on very well together. Their relationship changed in the early sixties when a
fields of
new monarch appeared, one with the largest coffers ever seen in the kingdom of the sciences: Lord DARPA, the
Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency. The artificial sister grew jealous and was determined
to keep for herself the access to Lord DARPA's research funds. The natural sister would have to be slain.

The bloody work was attempted by two staunch followers of the artificial sister, Marvin Minsky and
Seymour Papert, cast in the role of the huntsmen sent to slay Snow White and bring back her heart as proof of
the deed. Their weapon was not the dagger but the mightier pen, from which came a book— Perceptrons-
purporting to prove that neural nets could never fill their promise of building models of mind: only computer
programs could do this. Victory seemed assured for the artificial sister. And indeed for the next decade all the
rewards of the kingdom came to progeny, of which the family of expert systems did the best in fame and
fortune.

But Snow White was not dead. What Minsky and Papert had shown the world as proof was not the heart of
the princess; it was the heart of a pig. To be more literal: their book was read as proving that the neural net
approach to building models of the mind was dead. But a closer look reveals that they demonstrated something
less than this. The book did indeed point out very serious limitations of a certain class of nets (nowadays know
as one-layer perceptrons) but was misleading in its suggestion that this class of nets was at the heart of
connectionism.

Connectionist writings present the story as having a happy ending. The natural sister was quietly nurtured
in the laboratories of a few ardent researchers who kept the faith, even when the world at large let itself be
convinced that the enterprise was futile.

From, Seymour Papert, "One AI or Many?" Dcedalus, Volume 117, Number 1, Winter 1988 (p. 4-5)

5960 U I 7
1
 Date Due

iNOV 1 1 1^^

Mi ^,

W" 8 1999

OCT" 1 3 ZOO
NOV 1 1 zoqa
 liillllilllill
3 TDflO D0S70M3M fl